1. RAJA AFRAS1AB KHAN, J.- The necessary facts are that on 4.5.1989, a petition was instituted by respondents No.2 to 7 against the petitioner for his ejectment from House No. 51-B/3, Gulberg-III, before the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. The petitioner-tenant was holding the said property since 5.5.1973 under the respondent landlords. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing written-statement. During pendency of the case, the parties, however, amicably settled their dispute by entering into an agreement vide Annexure 'C. The said agreement is reproduced below:- "This Agreement is made and entered into between Dr. Mohammad Iqbal s/o late Major Muhammad Shafi hereinafter referred to as the landlord and Mr. Hassan Masood Malik s/o Khan Bahadur Malik Noor Mohammad Khan, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, WHEREAS the landlord is co-owner and Attorney for the other owners of the bungalow No. 51-B/3, Gulberg-III, Lahore, which bungalow is presently occupied by the said Mr. Hassan Masood Malik as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800/- (Rupees one thousand & eight hundred only) under the said landlord since 6th May, 1973.
2. The landlord has instituted an ejectment petition on the grounds of default etc and the said petition is fixed for hearing on 30.3.85 in the court of Mr. Hameed Jillani Rent Controller Lahore.
3. Through a meeting between the parties, the parties have entered into this agreement to cover future relationship on the following terms:-
(1) That the landlord shall withdraw the ejectment petition filed before the Honourable Rent Controller, Lahore.
(2) That the landlord and the tenant have agreed to extend the period of lease upto 31st December, 1987; At the end of this period the tenant will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord.
(3) That the tenant has agreed to enhance the rent as follows:-
(a) From 6th October 1985 to 5th October 1986 at Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month instead of Rs. 1,800/- (Rupees one thousand & eight hundred only).
(b) From 6th October 1986 to 31st December, 1987 at Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand & five hundred only).
4. Rent shall be payable in advance by 15th of every month against a regular receipt.
5. Signed at Lahore this 29th day of September, 1985.
6. Sd/-MUHAMMAD IQBAL.
7. LANDLORD.
8. Sd/- HASSAN MASOOD MALIK-TENANT WITNESSES: __________. __________. __________.
9. The parties appeared and made statements before the learned Rent Controller towards the execution of the aforesaid agreement. Learned Counsel for the respondent-landlords made the following statement:- {{Urdu text missed}} The learned counsel fot the petitoner-tenant also stated as follows:- {{Urdu text missed}} On 2.10.1985, in the light of statements of the learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:- {{Urdu text missed}} Sd. Civil Judge, Lahore.
2. On 2.3.1988, after about three years, an application was moved by the respondent-landlords for execution of the ejectment order of the learned Rent Controller. On 28.3.1988, the petitioner-tenant opposed the petition by filing an objection petition. Mr. Nasrullah Khan Ranjha, learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge lst Class, Lahore, vide his order dated 27.2.1989 concluded that the earlier order dated 2.10.1985 was not executable on the ground that a fresh Agreement of tenancy had been entered into by the parties in lieu of fresh terms and conditions. This being so, objection petition was accepted and as such the execution proceedings were dropped by the learned executing court. The order of the learned Civil Judge was assailed by the respondents by filing an appeal which was accepted by Mian Fayyaz Hameed Qureshi, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 28.1.1990. The learned appellate court held that the objection petition may be deemed to be pending and would be decided after framing issues on the basis of evidence of the parties. The learned court was also directed to decide the dispute of the parties expeditiously. The validity of this order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this constitution petition before this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Sh. Muhammad Sair Ali, learned counsel forcefully argues that the agreement entered into between the parties (Annexure 'C') shows that the respondents shall withdraw the eviction petition filed by them against the tenant. According to him, the counsel for the respondents also requested the learned Rent Controller for withdrawal of his eviction petition. It is contended by the learned counsel that as a result of compromise, rent of the property was substantially increased and as such a fresh agreement of tenancy came into existence automatically by operation of law.
10. Learned counsel, therefore, maintains that the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed in accordance with the terms of compromise and as such by accepting it, the learned Rent Controller exercised an authority which was not vested in him by law. It is, submitted that order dated 2.10.1985 was coram not judice and could not hold the Reid in the given circumstances. On the contrary, it is argued by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the Agreement (Annexure 'C') shows that there was no fresh tenancy created by the parties and that the petitioner was under duty to hand over the possession of the property to the landlord on or before 31.12.1987. It is also argued that Order XXIII (3) CPC shall not apply in the case because the learned Rent Controller did not act as a court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the entire record with their assistance with care. To begin with, the Agreement vide Annexure 'C' is admitted to have been executed by the parties. According to the Agreement, the petitioner was bound to have the vacant possession of the property to the respondents on 31.12.1987. It is established that only for this limited period, the tenancy was extended by the parties with an enhanced rent of the house. The fact that rent of the property was increased would not at all establish that the parties had entered into a new agreement of tenancy in respect of the house in question. As already pointed out above, clause (2) of the Agreement emphatically says that the tenancy was extended only upto 31.12.1987. On the expiry of this period, the tenant was bound as per his own commitment, to hand over the vacant possession of house to the respondents.
11. In my considered view, this was a case of compromise between the parties. They resolved their differences voluntarily by entering into the compromise in writing. The document itself speaks clearly about the intention of the parties about the said house. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, while laying much emphasis on clause (3) has forcefully argued that the parties have entered into a new agreement and as such the execution proceedings could not continue in the given circumstances. The argument is devoid of force inasmuch as the agreement has to be read as a whole for deciding the dispute between the parties. A careful reading of the agreement demonstrates that the tenant himself offered to hand over the possession of the property to the landlord on 31.12.1987. In the meantime, he also voluntarily agreed to pay the enhanced monthly rent. There is, undoubtedly nothing unusual in the said agreement. I, therefore, fail to understand as to under what circumstances, learned counsel feels justification to argue that there was a fresh tenancy having been created by the parties over the house in dispute. Their own case was that the rent from 1.10.1983 to November, 1985 had been paid and that it was agreed that the tenant shall give the possession of the house to the respondents on 31.12.1987. This statement was heard and accepted as correct by the counsel for the petitioner leaving behind no doubt whatsoever about their future relationship in respect of the disputed property. I have been persuaded on the basis of overwhelming evidence that the agreement Annexure 'C' entered into by the parties was a compromise which finally resolved the dispute of the parties. In such a situation, Order XXIII CPC would apply with full force to the case in hand. On 2.10.1985, the learned Rent Controller, therefore, had no other lawful authority but to accept the eviction petition on the basis of the compromise. It is correct that the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the eviction petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. This part of the statement was in fact, based on confusion and misunderstanding of the situation on the part of the learned counsel. Except to accept the eviction petition there was, indeed, no other lawful course open to the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 2.10.1985, therefore, rightly rectified the error occurring in the statement of the learned counsel by accepting the petition. In case, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction petition as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the agreement itself would have become ineffective which was not the intention of the document. It is the duty of the courts to decide the disputes strictly in accordance with the spirit of evidence recorded by them on the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. It is also well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the judgments and decrees of the competent courts which have been passed by them according to law. The jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to decide the issue one way or the other was not disputed in this case. It may also be noted that validity of order dated 2.10.1985 was not challenged any further by the petitioner. This order had, therefore, attained finality in law. Learned counsel has wholly failed to point out any illegality much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned order.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no force in the constitution petition which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear then- own costs. These observations, however, shall not be construed to affect the merits of the case in any manner whatsoever. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, a direction shall issue to the learned executing court to decide the dispute expeditiously. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.